Family trumps procreation in marriage debate

Stable families are the bedrock of our communities, so should we care why two people marry?

In this cartoon by Jeff Parker, a female minister marries two gay men, and after having them recite their vows, she says, "You may now kiss the Supreme Court." (Gannett, Jeff Parker/ Florida Today)(Photo: JEFF PARKER GANNETT)

My 80-year-old aunt married a wonderful old family friend, who is 83, and had a beautiful Episcopal ceremony, exchanging the traditional vows:

"The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God."

The vows elicited the expected titters from the congregation at the thought of two octogenarians procreating.

It was a wonderful celebration, and we wish them well.

An institution

Couples that commit to be bound by such vows are the bedrock of our community, even if they are not planning, or able, to procreate.

But I could not help but think that their marriage violates an essential underpinning of the arguments for a "traditional man-woman" marriage definition in our constitution.

Why should their marriage be legal? They are incapable of producing children "naturally."

Social good

This week's court rulings overturning marriage laws that restrict the institution to one man and one woman set the stage for the issue to return to the U.S. Supreme Court. A challenge to Tennessee's constitutional ban, passed in 2006, and the state's "anti-recognition" laws will be argued Aug. 6 in the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The amicus filings for Tennessee's case prompted the recollection my aunt's wedding and its place in the debate.

"As a bedrock social institution, marriage has always existed to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into committed unions for the benefit of children and society."

The wedding I attended does not comply with this definition, nor would my second marriage, or those of many of our friends — we did not get married to procreate.

The friends of Tennessee's statutory definition of marriage go on to argue:

"Marriage is inextricably linked to the fact that man-woman couples, and only such couples, are capable of naturally creating new life together, therefore furthering, or threatening, society's interests in responsibly creating and rearing the next generation."

I wonder what this argument means for man-woman couples who are not able to conceive naturally. Does this mean their marriage is not in society's interest, and any children not naturally conceived or those adopted are some how lesser?

The friends, who in this brief include 53 Tennessee legislators, say:

"Marriage laws have been, and continue to be, about the business of serving society's child-centered purposes, like connecting children to their biological mother and father, and avoiding the negative outcomes often experienced by children raised outside a stable family unit led by their biological parents. Redefining marriage would transform the institution in a way that threatens to harm its ability to serve those interests."

Kids, families and public good

Redefining marriage is exactly what we need because the fantasy of an institution that our law desires does not exist.

We certainly need more stable, committed couples in our communities. The more impediments to fostering those families, the poorer we are.

Frank Daniels is the community conversations editor of The Tennessean. Reach him at 615-881-7039 and on Twitter @fdanielsiii.